August 2013 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Jeff Harvey
    August 29, 2013

    Fatty’s example of winning the battle but losing the war. The lead author of the Nature paper states,

    “We don’t know precisely when we’re going to come out of [the hiatus] but we know that over the timescale of several decades, the climate will continue to warm as we pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.”

    In other words, the acknowledge the potent effects of C02 as a greenhouse gas that drives climate change. Poor Gordo – I am sure that part went over his head.

    Essentially, Fatso’s shot himself in the foot with this one – except that he clearly intends on airbrushing out the important caveat. I am sure the deniers will be doing the same all over the internet.

  2. #2 Lotharsson
    August 29, 2013

    …you can stick the contradiction up your arse, if it makes you feel better.

    Not gonna stick anything you pulled out of your arse anywhere about my person. Not even if you dub it a suppository of [faux] wisdom.

  3. #3 Jeff Harvey
    August 29, 2013

    More from the lead author:

    But the researchers warn that the impact of this multi-decadal cool trend will come to an end and will be replaced by a warming one. Global temperatures will rise once again.

    “We’re pretty confident that the swing up will come some time in the future, but the current science can’t predict when that will be”

    So what Xie is saying is that increased atmospheric C02 concentrations will ultimately, in the longer term, drive a warming climate. In fact, the authors state that the so-called hiatus may lead to an even greater rise in temperatures due to compensatory effects.

    Thus the prognosis remains very worrying, and humans should not be tampering with the atmosphere. End of story.

    But not for Fatso. He’ll argue that we should not do anything ever to change course so long as we are not 100% sure. Of course, if he is wrong, we are all seriously screwed, but he thinks that gambling on natural systems that sustain us is worth it.

    And to reiterate: the deniers are now crowing about a hiatus in warming. Fifteen years ago they crowed that there was no warming. And then they said it was warming but it was due to natural variation. Now they appear to accept the human fingerprint but its, oh, it ain’t so bad. It may even be good! And they must be admitting it through their hiatus spin.

    They are a vile bunch of liars.

  4. #4 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    ‘they said it was warming but it was due to natural variation.’

    True.

  5. #5 Berendaneke
    August 29, 2013

    Adelady, your comment is not valid

    There may really be some climate beginner laymen reading here.

    So rather than scare the horses with a reference to Science of Doom or other extremely technical stuff, here’s a short video with a clear explanation of climate sensitivity and how it’s calculated. It’s only 6 minutes or so.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdoln7hGZYk

    If you’ve forgotten all your high school algebra and how equations work, it’s still not that hard. Just save it and look at it again in a couple of days to see if those long unused circuits get reactivated.

    I have written “… CO2 sensitivity MEASURED …”

    and not YOUR VIRTUAL REALITY CALCULATED

    Do you greenpiss ideologist and non-scientist know the difference between “measurement” and “calculation”

    Fuck off from here you moron troll,

  6. #6 Berendaneke
    August 29, 2013

    @Lotharsson

    a) No
    b) No
    c) No
    d) No
    e) No, idiotic
    f) No
    g) No
    h) Never
    i) No
    j) No
    k) No

    a) Yes
    b) Yes
    c) As long as they keep moving the goalposts it might take some time.

    OK, so you don’t reconcile the contradiction.

    (And still haven’t understood that your answer to (a) is simply wrong.)

    Piss off from this blog

  7. #7 adelady
    August 29, 2013

    Measuring CO2 sensitivity?

    1. Would that be the value for transient or equilibrium sensitivity you’re after.
    2. Exactly w.h.e.n. do you propose we take a measurement of equilibrium sensitivity.
    3. Precisely how do you suggest we determine that the moment to measure climate equilibrium has occurred.
    4. Last for this topic but definitely not least, what equipment, process, technique or combination of these do you suggest we can or should or would use to take such a “measurement”.
    5. How and why would “measuring” transient sensitivity differ from the equilibrium value. What intervals do you think we should use. How often should we do this. Do we need different techniques or equipment for this.

  8. #8 Jeff Harvey
    August 29, 2013

    “Do you greenpiss ideologist and non-scientist”…..

    Not only is Freddy and arrogant, ignorant jerk, he’s also functionally illiterate. Clearly doesn’t know the difference between singular and plural or how to phrase a sentence properly.

    Moreover, he readily talks about ‘non-scientists’- as if he was one. Which he clearly is NOT. Nowhere close. More like an escapee from a psychiatric ward.

    Tim really needs to step up to the plate and screen for sock puppets like Freddy – the only place he belongs is in a padded cell. .

  9. #9 Jeff Harvey
    August 29, 2013

    ….ooops… an arrogant. Now I am becoming like him….

  10. #10 Jeff Harvey
    August 29, 2013

    Just for Luke and his infatuated sidekick Fatso:

    http://www.natureasia.com/en/research/highlight/8663

    A profoundly important study – but don’t expect the cherry picking deniers to touch it. Wrong story. Wrong conclusions.

  11. #11 Berendaneke
    August 29, 2013

    Adelady troll, you mean your crap really seriously?

    Measuring CO2 sensitivity?

    1. Would that be the value for transient or equilibrium sensitivity you’re after.
    2. Exactly w.h.e.n. do you propose we take a measurement of equilibrium sensitivity.
    3. Precisely how do you suggest we determine that the moment to measure climate equilibrium has occurred.
    4. Last for this topic but definitely not least, what equipment, process, technique or combination of these do you suggest we can or should or would use to take such a “measurement”.
    5. How and why would “measuring” transient sensitivity differ from the equilibrium value. What intervals do you think we should use. How often should we do this. Do we need different techniques or equipment for this.

    Equlibrium blah blah, hahaha, you moron

    NNNOOOOOOOO

    Temperature measurement with thermometers: YYYYYYEEEEEESSSSSS

    Climate sensitivity of CO2 (= warming by doubling CO2 in the air in degrees Celsius) AS MEASURED WITH THERMOMETERS AND NOT YOUR INSANE PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC EQUImasturbation blablablabla.

    Fuck off this blog you greenpisser ideolgist

  12. #12 Jeff Harvey
    August 29, 2013
  13. #13 Berendaneke
    August 29, 2013

    Harvey eco fundamentalist troll

    I cannot accept your unspeakable violation of good manners with your insane offence against my estimated colleague Freddy, who does not write at the moment here. Therefore I have to invalidate your crap:

    Not only is Freddy and arrogant, ignorant jerk, he’s also functionally illiterate. Clearly doesn’t know the difference between singular and plural or how to phrase a sentence properly.

    Moreover, he readily talks about ‘non-scientists’- as if he was one. Which he clearly is NOT. Nowhere close. More like an escapee from a psychiatric ward.

    Tim really needs to step up to the plate and screen for sock puppets like Freddy – the only place he belongs is in a padded cell.

    Fuck off you monger bollcks moron

  14. #14 Berendaneke
    August 29, 2013

    Australia undergoes at the moment a significant cooling trend, as friends in Wagga-Wagga have honestly informed me.

  15. #15 chek
    August 29, 2013

    Freddyfred @ #4

    Do you greenpiss ideologist and non-scientist know the difference between “measurement” and “calculation

    To calculate speed, what do you need to measure Freddyfred?

  16. #16 Berendaneke
    August 29, 2013

    My friends in Wagga-Wagga confirmed that there is a unanimous consensus in the community there that we have at the moment a cooling trend in Australia. In addition, they expect a better government that eradicates all CO2 insanities from public life in Australia.

  17. #17 Berendaneke
    August 29, 2013

    I will propose to the next Australn government that CO2 worshipping will be tolerated only in closed rooms at a minimum temperature of 36C and a CO2 concentration of 800ppm.

  18. #18 Lotharsson
    August 29, 2013

    Berendaneke, take your meds. Or get Freddy to take his.

  19. #19 Lionel A
    August 29, 2013

    Freddy, having estimated your ‘colleague’ freddy what do you make of him/her/it?

    One does not often come across such twaddle as in your #10 on this page.

    Just what do you think one of the yardsticks for having reached ECS, if we ever do but not likely in our time scale, will be?

  20. #20 adelady
    August 29, 2013

    ‘If La Niña events can stop global warming, then how much do El Niño events contribute? 50%? The climate science community is actually hurting itself when they fail to answer the obvious questions.’

    That’s like suggesting that winter can “stop” global warming.

    In any given place the temperatures vary each year according to the seasons. For the whole globe, ENSO variations can cool or warm the whole planet. And just as many of us can find a comfy spot out of the rain/wind when it’s cold in our area (or find a cool shady spot when it’s boiling hot), so there are spots on the planet where the inhabitants are shielded or protected from the hotter/ colder conditions generally.

    Neither seasons nor ENSO variations say anything at all about a trend in temperatures over a score or a century of years.

  21. #21 BBD
    August 29, 2013

    When is Freddy going to be banned?

  22. #22 Stu
    August 29, 2013

    Yes, about that acidification:

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1981.html

    By the way, Freddy, are you seriously saying that AGW is falsified because your anonymous friends in Wagga-Wagga say so?

    Question: what does the “G” stand for? And what does that word mean?

  23. #23 BBD
    August 29, 2013

    I am serious (always was). This ranting, abusive, multiple-sock puppet fuckwit goes too far, every time.

    Enough, Tim. Enough now.

  24. #24 BBD
    August 29, 2013

    The Lukes says:

    So if the models haven’t failed refute von Storch’s paper.

    You’ll do so with the OHC ruse or appeals to authority.

    So we have an incrementally adaptive story.

    So original thinking wasn’t correct. How much else is there? Is it knowable?

    Let’s fillet this:

    – There is no evidence that “proves” that the models are “falsified”. This is a false claim and can be dismissed

    – HvS isn’t saying anything, he is making a noise, and so he can be ignored

    – Ah! The “OHC ruse” – a direct accusation that climate scientists are collaborating to deceive the public and policy makers! A crank conspiracy theory!

    [At this point, everything Luke says can be ignored because he has, once again, revealed that he is nothing more than a crank, but we will carry on.]

    – What The Lukes ridiculously calls “appeals to authority” every sane person recognises as scientific knowledge – as distinct from blog crankery and denialist pseudo-science. The profundity of The Lukes’ confusion may be seen every time he references anything in an attempt to shore up his ridiculous arguments :-)

    – “An incrementally adaptive story” – Oh FFS! Scientific knowledge is not complete and perfect!!! It’s all and incrementally adaptive story you fucking bufoon!

    Summary:

    More dishonest but otherwise content-free rhetoric from The Lukes!

  25. #25 BBD
    August 29, 2013

    BTW Is this “von Storch paper” that The Lukes keeps prating about the one that was rejected by the journal?

  26. #26 Lotharsson
    August 29, 2013

    Even more from the lead author of that paper:

    “The equatorial Pacific Ocean is associated with distinct regional patterns, like the Pacific coast of North America,” Xie said. “Because of equatorial cooling, this area has not been warming as rapidly as before, but when the equatorial Pacific shifts into a warm state, those regions might expect rapid warming, on the order of 2 degrees Celsius [3.6 degrees Fahrenheit] over 15 years.”

    I don’t know the basis for this quote but we’d all better hope the author is wrong.

  27. #27 Berendaneke
    August 29, 2013

    Repetition 7 of Lesson 1 for teh stupid greenpiss Dumbtoids (as no learning effect could be detected until now):

    Climatology Lesson 1 for CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters:

    Science shows you CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters that the hypothesized effect of anthropogenic CO2 on air temperatures 2m above the surface cannot be precisely measured.

    Is anybody apart BBD – who has convincingly demonstrated his reading comprehension problems – of the Doltoid greenpissers able to confirm that he has understood the lesson for climate beginner laymen like you??

    When will the first AGW Deltoid greenpisser be able to tell me that he has learned lesson 1.

  28. #28 Stu
    August 29, 2013

    Freddy, seriously, DIAFF. You’re stupid, boring and pathetic.

  29. #29 Stu
    August 29, 2013

    Lotharsson: the implication is that the variability is essentially spring-loading temperature rise now… the next El Nino is likely to be a doozy.

  30. #30 Lionel A
    August 29, 2013

    Is Berendaneke an anagram of Brendan Keene?

    Just saying.

  31. #31 Berendaneke
    August 29, 2013

    My friends in Wagga-Wagga expect that northwest cloudbands will increase in density in the immediate future and provide more cooling in Australia.

    A northwest cloudband is an extensive layer of cloud which can stretch from northwest to southeast Australia.

    Northwest cloudbands are formed when warm, moist tropical air originating over the Indian Ocean moves poleward (generally southeastward), and is forced to rise over colder air in the mid-latitudes. This typically occurs when tropical air to the northwest of Australia moves poleward on the western flank of a high pressure system over eastern Australia.

    Northwest cloudbands can also interact with cold fronts and cut-off lows over southeastern Australia to produce very heavy rainfall.

    More rainfall in the future in Australia will the Deltoid AGW greenpissers calm down in their anxiety.

    Northwest cloudbands may have links with the Indian Ocean Dipole. When Indian Ocean sea surface temperatures to the northwest of Australia are warmer than average, northwest cloudbands may become more frequent and produce heavier rainfall.

    This sounds great for Australia. AGW is over and we can happily expect the next climate catastrophe, maybe then some nice cooling,

  32. #32 Stu
    August 29, 2013

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12534

    Summarized at http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/08/recent-slowdown-in-atmospheric-warming-thanks-to-la-nina/

    It adds up to a pretty coherent picture pointing to a cluster of La Niñas as the cause of the slowdown in atmospheric warming. But why all the La Niñas? The researchers chalk it up to natural variability—a lot of coin flips have simply come up La Niña lately. If that’s the case, the researchers write, “the hiatus [in atmospheric warming] is temporary, and global warming will return when the tropical Pacific swings back to a warm state.”

  33. #33 Stu
    August 29, 2013

    Freddy, my dear mentally challenged friend, what does the “G” in AGW stand for?

  34. #34 Berendaneke
    August 29, 2013

    The next Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said in 2009
    that he thought the science of climate change was “highly contentious” and that he thought that the economics of an ETS was “a bit dodgy”

    He was only partly right as climate change is an unethical fraud by greenpissers to harm the world. Tony will do a good job in protecting the Australian economy and confine the greenpissers in Oz

  35. #35 Stu
    August 29, 2013

    Freddy, my dear mentally challenged friend, what does the “G” in AGW stand for?

  36. #36 Berendaneke
    August 29, 2013

    Another question which the devoid Deltoid CAGW illusionists cannot answer:

    What is the explanation of the CAGW religion addicted Dumbtoid retards on the fact that

    1: there are least 59 times more CAGW condemning climate realism internet blogs than insane CAGW worshipping blogs with only a few annoyed readers

    2: that CAGW contrarians and climate realists are on overage considerably more intelligent and better educated than the monomanic CO2 greenpissers with their gaia religion of back to stoneage

    Why is it so difficult for Dumbtoids to answer such easy questions?

    Answer:
    Because AGW Dumbtoid illusionists are dull and dumb

    hahahaha, dull and dumb

  37. #37 Berendaneke
    August 29, 2013

    Stu, wrong

    Lotharsson: the implication is that the variability is essentially spring-loading temperature rise now… the next El Nino is likely to be a doozy.

    pure speculation without scientific evidence, therefore discarded.

  38. #38 Lotharsson
    August 29, 2013

    …and that he thought that the economics of an ETS was “a bit dodgy”…

    …and so he advocated a straight carbon tax. In 2009. The very year you’re talking about.

    And then when the minority coalition government passed a temporary carbon price on the way to an ETS he demonised it for three years as “a carbon tax” with completely over the top bullshit about the horrendous negative impact the scheme would have on the economy. He was for it before he was against it.

    And now that he’s been proven comprehensively wrong on the economic scare campaign, never mind proven to be a complete hypocrite on the carbon tax itself, he’s not changed his mind in the slightest.

    Where have I seen that kind of opinion maintenance in the face of contrary evidence before? And what does it say about his unsuitability to lead?

  39. #39 Stu
    August 29, 2013

    Freddy, my dear mentally challenged friend, what does the “G” in AGW stand for?

    Also,

    there are least 59 times more CAGW condemning climate realism internet blogs than insane CAGW worshipping blogs with only a few annoyed readers

    That you think this matters at all straddles between pathetic, sad and hilarious. Someone could pay me to create 20,000 blogs before the weekend that confirm AGW. Then what, Freddy?

    hat CAGW contrarians and climate realists are on overage considerably more intelligent and better educated

    [Citation seriously fucking needed, you moron]

  40. #40 BBD
    August 29, 2013

    When the fuck is Freddy going in the shitcan?

    Seriously?

    The Lukes has entertainment value, as do others, but Freddy is just a slavering nutter who has even less of an idea than KarenMacSunspot and Gordy.

    Yes. Even less.

  41. #41 BBD
    August 29, 2013

    And people, please note that Freddy’s prose has tightened up remarkably in recent comments.

    Starting to think that this fucker is just another sock being puppetted by one of our regular fake sceptics!

  42. #42 Marco
    August 29, 2013

    BBD, it’s borisfreddykaitroll’s fourth moniker.

    It all started here:
    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/02/11/the-strange-case-of-the-denialists-inability-to-read/#comment-26317

    Although berendanekeborisfreddykaitroll is both a nuisance and a source of hilarity, I am also a bit worried. The comments are so unhinged that I am getting more and more certain that he has a serious psychological disorder which is apparently insufficiently controlled by proper medication.

  43. #43 Lionel A
    August 29, 2013

    Good one Marco and BBD must have noticed that too. freddykai indeed. You need to wash out that ol’ sock bbfk it stinks.

    I like Hank Roberts’ use of the term ‘word salad’ at #53 over there.

  44. #44 BBD
    August 29, 2013

    #41 Marco

    Yes, I’ve followed the whole miserable spectacle all the way to the present (I read, but rarely comment at Stoat). And I’m proud to say I called BFBKT first here on “Boris” and “Bere”. It’s a knack I have!

    There is something odd going on above. Look at the sentence structure, vocabulary and spelling in recent comments. Either there are two posters using the Bere handle, or Bere is faking his own Danish/MittelEuropan tone.

  45. #45 BBD
    August 29, 2013

    Damnation – that should be Dutch/MittelEuropan tone…

  46. #46 Turboblocke
    August 29, 2013

    Cough MittelEuropean

  47. #47 BBD
    August 29, 2013

    #45 Oops! Thank you.

    Still, at least I know the difference between Greenland and the Eemian!

    Could be worse!

    :-)

  48. #48 Stu
    August 29, 2013

    I think we might be a little hasty with our puppetry deductions here. Until blogs take the magical step of providing a nice, fat, expensive one-way hash of the poster’s IP address (something that would take just about ten minutes of arduous coding), we’re all still guessing. Heck, just from the Napoleonic lunacy I had Boris pegged as a Jonas puppet for a while.

    Then again, I might just not be as good at this as BBD is.

  49. #49 Berendaneke
    August 29, 2013

    My name is Berendaneke and I have no idea what the last “comments” of the poor AGW greenpissers here have in common with climate science: nothing, of course. These AGW nutters here should fucked off immediately by Tim, as they represent a big shame for IPCC climatology. These greenpiss IPCC socketeers are just mean underperformers which are unable to digest climate lesson 1:

    Repetition 8 of Lesson 1 for teh stupid greenpiss Dumbtoids (as no learning effect could be detected until now):

    Climatology Lesson 1 for CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters:

    Science shows you CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters that the hypothesized effect of anthropogenic CO2 on air temperatures 2m above the surface cannot be precisely measured.

    Is anybody apart BBD – who has convincingly demonstrated his reading comprehension problems – of the Doltoid greenpissers able to confirm that he has understood the lesson for climate beginner laymen like you??

  50. #50 BBD
    August 29, 2013

    My name is Berendaneke

    Perhaps it is. The problem here is the sock-puppetry, BorisFreddyKai!

    :-)

    the hypothesized effect of anthropogenic CO2 on air temperatures 2m above the surface cannot be precisely measured.

    Indeed you are correct. Which is why all the GAT reconstructions, including satellite TLT, have error bars indicating the range of uncertainty!

    What you are having trouble grasping is that the entirely different instruments and methodology used to produce the satellite TLT reconstructions *validate* the surface gridded temperature datasets.

    If the surface T reconstructions were borked, it would show up in the comparison with the satellite reconstructions of TLT.

    And it doesn’t.

    They are in very close agreement.

    Try to understand!

    :-)

  51. #51 Jeff Harvey
    August 29, 2013

    “My name is Berendaneke and I have no idea”

    You’ve got that right.

  52. #52 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    ‘I will propose to the next Australn government that CO2 worshipping will be tolerated only in closed rooms at a minimum temperature of 36C and a CO2 concentration of 800ppm.’

    That’s quite funny Beren, keep up the good work.

  53. #53 chek
    August 29, 2013

    Science shows you CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters that the hypothesized effect of anthropogenic CO2 on air temperatures 2m above the surface cannot be precisely measured.

    Berendumbo, quite apart from your fantasy ‘argument’ being repeatedly completely skewered, most recently by BBD @ # 49 above, the World Meteorological Organization agreed standard for the height of the thermometers is between 1.25 m (4 ft 1 in) and 2 m (6 ft 7 in) above the ground. So what’s your blethering about 2m all about, and precisely how many are at your incorrectly specified height?

    My bet is you’re just another two-bit, ten-a penny, gormless denier buffoon without a clue as to why you spout the shite you feel compelled to.

  54. #54 BBD
    August 29, 2013

    Gordy, why?

    :-(

    A new low.

  55. #55 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    ‘That’s like suggesting that winter can “stop” global warming.’

    No dear lady, Tisdale is suggesting that a positive IPO may have caused the jump in temperatures late last century, its certainly fits the facts.

  56. #56 chek
    August 29, 2013

    “Australn” (sic)

    That’s quite funny Beren, keep up the good work.

    You would think that Gordon, your motto presumably being “The enemy of education is my friend”.
    You utter plank.

  57. #57 Luke
    August 29, 2013

    BBD #23 “Well gee I disagree” HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  58. #58 chek
    August 29, 2013

    its certainly fits the facts

    No, it doesn’t.

    But please do continue and tell which selected facts make it the AGW killing argument you so desperately want to believe in. Try not to leave anything out. This is your chance to lay out your stall. (No laughing at the back, please)

  59. #59 Stu
    August 29, 2013

    Tisdale is suggesting that a positive IPO may have caused the jump in temperatures late last century

    Oh do elaborate. Tisdale said this in 2008. Did you or did you not read the more current study I linked to earlier?

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12534

    Come on precious, be honest.

  60. #60 Stu
    August 29, 2013

    (retreats quickly before check notices the SNIRK)

  61. #61 Stu
    August 29, 2013

    @Luke, 56: Thank you for admitting you have no argument. Kind of odd though, from a practicing scientist.

    [snirk]

  62. #62 BBD
    August 29, 2013

    #56

    Good morning Luke!

    What is it that is causing OHC to increase simultaneously in all major basins?

    You never said.

    I only ask again as there is no known ocean circulation that could redistribute energy within the climate system by causing the global ocean to warm in this way.

    So I’m once again puzzled and still waiting for a physical mechanism that might explain what is happening. Which is an ongoing accumulation of energy in the climate system, which is mainly the world ocean!

    :-)

    This dilemma gets much worse if we’ve “had the 1C and that’s it”.

    A very low climate sensitivity is incompatible with the observed increase in OHC since, say, 1980. Not to mention all known paleoclimate behaviour!

    Add in the required abrupt change in the laws of physics sometime in the last decade and things get really very strange indeed!

    ;-)

  63. #63 Stu
    August 29, 2013

    Oh by the way, chek….

    You utter plank.

    [Obligatory] [Can’t help it]
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVNEJQfl46M

  64. #64 BBD
    August 29, 2013

    @The Lukes

    Just in case you have forgotten what #61 is about, see page 37 #19:

    [The Lukes:]

    And don’t verbal me cunt – CO2 forcing exists – the whole 1C and you’ve now had all you’re gonna get.

    This is interesting. You appear to be arguing that:

    – The climate system is in instantaneous equilibrium with delta F (there is no lagged, transient response, aka TCR).

    – The laws of physics have changed so that future increases in GHG forcing will have no effect on T.

    :-)

  65. #65 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    ‘Lotharsson: the implication is that the variability is essentially spring-loading temperature rise now… the next El Nino is likely to be a doozy.’

    Wow, just when everything was looking bad, we now have a new scary story. Problem is there won’t be many El Nino over the next 20 years because of a cool IPO.

    Besides, my tipping point is expected within a couple of years so you might as well exploit the fear of boiling oceans while you still have a chance.

  66. #66 Stu
    August 29, 2013

    Problem is there won’t be many El Nino over the next 20 years because of a cool IPO.

    You cannot possibly be serious.

  67. #67 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    Yes.

  68. #68 Stu
    August 29, 2013

    Anyway, since the deniers seem to be worried about Australia only (who cares about Africa, Indonesia, Bangladesh, the US or South America south of Brazil anyway, AMIRITE?)….

    Did Australia have its hottest summer on record in 2012, yes or no?

  69. #69 Luke
    August 29, 2013

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/28/overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/#more-12731

    Well yo’all are fucked – IPCC authors now saying the models are wrong and suggesting why they MIGHT be wrong and they MIGHT be fixed and how we’ll just have to WAIT and SEE.

    Sorry was that models overestimating? In Nature? By IPCC authors. Do my eyes deceive me? Does this mean Von Storch and Lucia are dead right and on the money.

    You fucking amateur shitfaced clowns. DOLTOIDS here on the island. The leper colony of nihilism, Kool Aid injecting and denial.

    Dickheads !

  70. #70 BBD
    August 29, 2013

    #66 Gordy

    ENSO isn’t flipped into an “LN-only” mode by the postulated IPO. It’s suggested that the frequency of LNs increases, not that ENs disappear!

    So your “yes” is nothing short of comic!

    If you disagree, please provide some evidence (published literature only!) that what you argue has occurred before. I’d love to see it!

    While searching the intertubes, do enjoy Stu’s link at #62. A touch whimsical in style for me, but apposite!

  71. #71 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    BB it’s well known that during a warm IPO there are more El Nino and cool IPO supplies more La Nina.

  72. #72 BBD
    August 29, 2013

    Luke

    You shouldn’t run ahead so fast!

    Let’s wait for AR5.

    And as I have said once or twice before, the “observationally”-derived estimates of S are extremely sensitive to assumptions about negative aerosol forcing and inter-decadal variability in OHC. So, it is unwise (not sceptical) to use this literature as “evidence” that S is lower than paleoclimate behaviour suggests.

    All this is written up above. I get the impression that you haven’t understood any of it. Start with what Meehl (2013) is saying.

  73. #73 chek
    August 29, 2013

    Sorry was that models overestimating?

    Nope, you’re being played with interpretations based on short time periods. Last I heard the arctic amplification effect was severely underestimated. But as we know, models aren’t perfect, just useful to varying degrees.

    It seems only idiot deniers impute magical powers to them.

  74. #74 BBD
    August 29, 2013

    #70

    So.

    We’ve got energy accumulating in the climate system (mainly the world ocean)

    We’ve got the largest ocean -> atmosphere energy transfer event of the lot in ENSO

    Why won’t future ENs be *predominantly* strong, high magnitude events?

    Physical mechanism?

    :-)

  75. #75 Berendaneke
    August 29, 2013

    Luke: “You fucking amateur shitfaced clowns. DOLTOIDS here on the island. The leper colony of nihilism, Kool Aid injecting and denial”

    Well said, I couldn’t agree more to this realistic description of the CAGW greenpiss nutter island.

  76. #76 Luke
    August 29, 2013

    Published in Nature Climate Change by top flight IPCC authors – hahahahahahahahahaha

    AR5 is already out of date ! hhahahahahahahaha

  77. #77 BBD
    August 29, 2013

    #71 Edit

    Careless writing there!

    Should be:

    And as I have said once or twice before, the “observationally”-derived estimates of S are extremely sensitive to assumptions about negative aerosol forcing and inter-decadal variability in ocean heat uptake.

    Sorry folks!

  78. #78 chek
    August 29, 2013

    Stu, cute video. But I hope it hasn’t caused Gordon Dieback.

    Surely Deltoid’s own Aussie No Carbon Czar, crank extraordinaire and host of Oz politicos wouldn’t be unduly affected by such a harmless video and be too chickenshit to lay out the case he was most surely just about to do?

    I fear he might well turn tail and clam up. Or he might conceivably have grown a pair, but we’ll never know now.

  79. #79 Luke
    August 29, 2013

    Trying to keep my Tourettes under control. Really want to say that word. Really do !

    And then a Pacific Centennial Oscillation

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00421.1?journalCode=clim

    “Significant centennial-length trends in the zonal SST and SLP gradients rivaling those estimated from observations and model simulations forced with increasing CO2 appear to be inherent features of the internal climate dynamics simulated by all three models. Unforced variability and trends on the centennial time scale therefore need to be addressed in estimated uncertainties, beyond more traditional signal-to-noise estimates that do not account for natural variability on the centennial time scale.”

    hahahahahahahahaha …. cunt ….

  80. #80 BBD
    August 29, 2013

    Luke hasn’t understood any of this. And despite his gentle joshing, I have tried to explain.

    But in the end:

    hahahahahahahahahaha

    :-(

    * * *

    Luke has not answered yet another question. Luke needs to go back to #61 and #63 where presumably he left his handbag containing his stash of good faith!

    Happy hunting, Luke!

    :-)

  81. #81 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    BB I didn’t say El Nino disappeared during cool IPO, only that there is less of them. We know this from an Australian perspective, a land of drought and flood.

  82. #82 BBD
    August 29, 2013

    I love it when they do this. After a lifetime of denying the utility of models, deniers use a single modelling study as “evidence” that all known paleoclimate behaviour is bollocks!

    Keep on rockin’ Luke!

    :-)

  83. #83 Berendaneke
    August 29, 2013

    BBD no excuse necessary

    And as I have said once or twice before, the “observationally”-derived estimates of S are extremely sensitive to assumptions about negative aerosol forcing and inter-decadal variability in ocean heat uptake.

    Nobody – except maybe your peer CAGW nutters on your leper island of nihilism – would assume that you work diligently and with accuracy. Therefore nobody cares whether you say ocean heat contempt, ice age peak denial, fragrance ill disaster, or similar bullshit of yours. All your crap is totally inconsistent and logically worthless. Fuck off from this blog, greenpiss nutter.

  84. #84 chek
    August 29, 2013

    So the Luke Collective includes Berendork?
    I am shocked, shocked I tell you.
    More shocked than an electric eel nailed to a Van der Graaf generator in a mad scientist movie scene.
    Is no blog sacred anymore?

  85. #85 Luke
    August 29, 2013

    Must be hurting bad !

    Time to leave the island guys. It’s over.

  86. #86 BBD
    August 29, 2013

    #84

    There you go again! Running ahead!

    Patience, Luke, patience.

    You need to become a humble student of the long game!

  87. #87 BBD
    August 29, 2013

    Now, students of text, here’s more fun!

    Nobody – except maybe your peer CAGW nutters on your leper island of nihilism – would assume that you work diligently and with accuracy. Therefore nobody cares whether you say ocean heat contempt, ice age peak denial, fragrance ill disaster, or similar bullshit of yours. All your crap is totally inconsistent and logically worthless. Fuck off from this blog, greenpiss nutter.

    This is a rapid evolution of syntax, vocabulary and coherence!

    Whatever can be going on!

    :-)

  88. #88 Stu
    August 29, 2013

    Okay, I’m sorry, it’s obvious that they’re not getting the baiting.

    Sweethearts. If there is a centennial oscillation, and temperatures have gone up sharply during the previous century, this means…

  89. #89 Stu
    August 29, 2013

    Freddy,

    ocean heat contempt, ice age peak denial, fragrance ill disaster,

    I don’t even know where to put the [sic]s in there. It’s such an epic sequence of fail.

    All your crap is totally inconsistent and logically worthless

    This coming from someone who is congenitally unable to spell, tell the truth or read. Hey, Freddy, nobody’s laughing with you.

  90. #90 BBD
    August 29, 2013

    Will the real Berendaneke please stand up!

    Will there be a Spartacus moment?!

    Because if there isn’t, we might begin to wonder why!

  91. #91 Stu
    August 29, 2013

    I think Berendaneke is Freddy’s Tyler Durden.

  92. #92 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    ‘If there is a centennial oscillation, and temperatures have gone up sharply during the previous century, this means…’

    The warmists say AGW intensified the warm IPO late last century, while the Denialati say an over active sun had a more profound effect on the IPO.

    Here is a paper using tree rings.

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-06/uoha-enu062813.php

  93. #93 Stu
    August 29, 2013

    For fuck’s sake, Gordo, do I really have to beat you over the head with it?

    One more try. Let’s take that centennial oscillation, and see what it did in prior centuries. You can figure this out by taking any global temperature measurement you like and going back before 1900.

    Go on, precious. Go look. Let us know what you find.

  94. #94 chek
    August 29, 2013

    So reffing #78 Gordon didn’t, and hasn’t.
    Fucking opportunistic Aussie deniers.
    Chickenshit coward cranks with nothing to say when pressed.

  95. #95 Stu
    August 29, 2013

    Chek, I could live with the generic “fuck the darkies” sentiment that’s patently obvious. They don’t give a shit about Africa, Bangladesh, et cetera. As long as fictional farmer friends in Wakka Wakka (I probably got that wrong, sorry, I can’t be bothered) say AGW is not happening, thousands of scientists must be wrong. Because fuck you, that’s why.

    Fine. That’s just standard NIMBY Libertarian bigoted claptrap. It’s pathetic that they’re in denial about it, but what can you do?

    It’s when denialists try to support their argument by posting a link that says RIGHT THERE, FIRST PAGE, NO PAYWALL

    “Many climate models do not reflect the strong ENSO response to global warming that we found,” says co-author Shang-Ping Xie, meteorology professor at the International Pacific Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa and Roger Revelle Professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego. “This suggests that many models underestimate the sensitivity to radiative perturbations in greenhouse gases. Our results now provide a guide to improve the accuracy of climate models and their projections of future ENSO activity. If this trend of increasing ENSO activity continues, we expect to see more weather extremes such as floods and droughts.”

    That’s where it becomes hard not to simply give up. The sheer mendacity and stupidity is almost too much to bear.

    Almost. Because that, really, is the entire object of the exercise: yell stupid shit loudly enough, often enough and long enough that sensible people just give up. Hey, it worked for artificially shifting the Overton window in the US, and it is working again now. Enough money and enough useful idiots and people JUST. GIVE. UP.

    I’m not giving up. They are either paid liars or idiot stooges, and at this point the difference is academic.

  96. #96 Stu
    August 29, 2013

    To put it another way. Freddy, KarenMackSunWhatever and Gordo: I hope you’re being paid to do this. If you are, you’re a despicable liar who at least tries to put food on the table and can rationalize fucking up the planet for your children by at least feeding them for now. If not, you’re a despicable liar, period.

  97. #97 Luke
    August 29, 2013

    zzzzzzzzzzzz – meanwhile back at the Nature paper IPCC authors confirm what has been denied here…….. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  98. #98 BBD
    August 29, 2013

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz yourself, Luke!

    You are the one not quite getting the big picture!

    Try harder, Luke!

  99. #99 chek
    August 29, 2013

    meanwhile back at the Nature paper IPCC authors confirm what has been denied here

    …or so it seemed in the child-like minds of dipshit deniers, whose untroubled minds knew not the meaning of words, as evidenced by the inability to state anything of substance.

  100. #100 Stu
    August 29, 2013

    zzzzzzzzz Meanwhile clownshoe deniers read a denialist blog commentary on a scientific paper and go along with the lies and misrepresentations because they are too stupid and lazy to read the source material…

    Really weird for a “practicing scientist” though. Wait. Am I getting the trolls confused now? Has Luke claimed to be a superduperawesomebetterthanyall scientist yet?

Current ye@r *